Supreme Court Constitution Bench NJAC validity issue hearing completed and judgment reserved

A Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, comprising of Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar, Justice J. Chelameswar, Justice Madan B. Lokur, Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel, has today (15 July 2015) completed the hearing of several writ petitions that challenged the constitutional validity of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). The judgment has now been reserved in this case. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court also directed that the interim order on the tenure of Additional judges of High Courts would be extended till pronouncement of the judgment in this case.

It is pertinent to mention that the Constitution (99^th Amendment) Act, 2014, was passed by the Parliament and on its ratification by the legislatures of not less than one-half of the states, as required under the Proviso to clause (2) of Article 368, it received the assent of the President on 31^st December 2014. This constitutional amendment created NJAC, inter alia, for recommending persons for appointment as Chief Justice of India, judges of the Supreme Court, Chief justices of the high courts and other judges of the high courts. This Constitutional Amendment was brought into force by way of a notification in the Official Gazette. Likewise, a separate Act of the Parliament, called, the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act was also notified recently by the Government after it received the assent of the President.

The erstwhile Collegium system of appointing judges to Supreme Court and high courts has been replaced by the NJAC through the aforesaid Constitutional Amendment and the said Act. These provisions were challenged before the Supreme Court by way of the following writ petitions, the hearing of which was concluded today on 15.07.2015:

1. W.P.(C) No. 13/2015 [Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association And Anr. Vs. Union Of India].
2. W.P.(C) No. 23/2015 [Bhim Singh, Sr. Advocate Vs. Union Of India].
3. W.P.(C) No. 70/2015 [Change India Vs. Union Of India & Anr.].
4. W.P.(C) No. 83/2015 [Centre For Public Interest Litigation Vs. Union Of India].
5. T.P.(C) No. 391/2015 [Union Of India And Ors. Vs. Y. Krishnan].
6. W.P.(C) No. 108/2015 [Bar Association Of India And Anr. Vs. Union Of India].
7. W.P.(C) No. 124/2015 [Mathews J. Nedumpara Vs. Supreme Court Of India, Thr. Secretary General & Ors.].
8. W.P.(C) No. 14/2015 [Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Union Of India].
9. W.P.(C) No. 18/2015 [R.K. Kapoor Vs. Union Of India & Others].
10. W.P.(C) No. 24/2015 [Bishwajit Bhattacharyya Vs. Union Of India].
11. W.P.(C) No. 209/2015 [Suraz India Trust Vs. Union Of India].
12. W.P.(C) No. 309/2015 [P.M. Duraiswamy Vs. Union Of India Rep. By Its Cabinet Secretary And Anr].
13. W.P.(C) No. 310/2015 [Balaram Singha Roy Vs. Union Of India].
14. W.P.(C) No. 323/2015 [Narendra Kumar Vs. Union Of India And Anr].
15. T.P.(C) No. 971/2015 [Baisil Attipety Vs. Union Of India].
16. W.P.(C) No. 341/2015 [All India Association Of Jurists & Anr Vs. Union Of India].

The judgment of the Supreme Court in this case will be eagerly awaited. However, it is not sure as to whether this judgment of the 5-judge Constitution bench will be final or the matter will have to be argued again before a larger bench of the Supreme Court, may be an 11-judge bench in view of the fact that earlier following two decisions on the Collegium issue had been delivered by 9-judge benches of the Supreme Court:

(1)   Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 441 : AIR 1994 SC 268 : 1993 Supp (2) SCR 659.

(2)   Special Reference No. 1 of 1998, Re,  (1998) 7 SCC 739 : AIR 1999 SC 1.

Also see:

• Chief Justice of India H.L. Dattu’s refusal to join panel for NJAC is constitutional impropriety
• Conflict of interest in Constitution bench hearing NJAC validity
• Supreme Court Collegium will continue for judges appointment till NJAC is set up
• No fresh appointment of SC and HC judges until PILs challenging NJAC are decided, says Law Minister.